1
|
Handels R, Herring WL, Grimm S, Sköldunger A, Winblad B, Wimo A, Jönsson L. New IPECAD Open-Source Model Framework for the Health Technology Assessment of Early Alzheimer's Disease Treatment: Development and Use Cases. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2025; 28:511-518. [PMID: 39094686 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2024.07.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2024] [Revised: 07/02/2024] [Accepted: 07/21/2024] [Indexed: 08/04/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Reimbursement decisions for new Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatments are informed by economic evaluations. An open-source model with intuitive structure for model cross-validation can support the transparency and credibility of such evaluations. We describe the new International Pharmaco-Economic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) open-source model framework (version 2) for the health-economic evaluation of early AD treatment and use it for cross-validation and addressing uncertainty. METHODS A cohort state-transition model using a categorized composite domain (cognition and function) was developed by replicating an existing reference model and testing it for internal validity. Then, features of existing Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) and Alzheimer's Disease Archimedes Condition-Event Simulator (AD-ACE) models assessing lecanemab treatment were implemented for model cross-validation. Additional uncertainty scenarios were performed on choice of efficacy outcome from trial, natural disease progression, treatment effect waning and stopping rules, and other methodological choices. The model is available open-source as R code, spreadsheet, and web-based version via https://github.com/ronhandels/IPECAD. RESULTS In the IPECAD model incremental life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gains and cost savings were 21% to 31% smaller compared with the ICER model and 36% to 56% smaller compared with the AD-ACE model. IPECAD model results were particularly sensitive to assumptions on treatment effect waning and stopping rules and choice of efficacy outcome from trial. CONCLUSIONS We demonstrated the ability of a new IPECAD open-source model framework for researchers and decision makers to cross-validate other (Health Technology Assessment submission) models and perform additional uncertainty analyses, setting an example for open science in AD decision modeling and supporting important reimbursement decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ron Handels
- Alzheimer Center Limburg, Faculty of Health Medicine and Life Sciences, Mental Health and Neuroscience Research Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Division of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society Karolinska Institutet BioClinicum J9:20, Solna, Sweden.
| | - William L Herring
- Division of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society Karolinska Institutet BioClinicum J9:20, Solna, Sweden; Health Economics, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | - Sabine Grimm
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment, School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Anders Sköldunger
- Division of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society Karolinska Institutet BioClinicum J9:20, Solna, Sweden
| | - Bengt Winblad
- Division of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society Karolinska Institutet BioClinicum J9:20, Solna, Sweden; Theme Inflammation and Aging, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden
| | - Anders Wimo
- Division of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society Karolinska Institutet BioClinicum J9:20, Solna, Sweden
| | - Linus Jönsson
- Division of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology Care Sciences and Society Karolinska Institutet BioClinicum J9:20, Solna, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wimo A, Handels R, Blennow K, Kirsebom BE, Selnes P, Bon J, Emersic A, Gonzalez-Ortiz F, Gregoric Kramberger M, Sköldunger A, Speh A, Timón-Reina S, Vromen E, Jelle Visser P, Winblad B, Fladby T. Cost-effectiveness of diagnosing and treating patients with early Alzheimer's disease with anti-amyloid treatment in a clinical setting. J Alzheimers Dis 2025; 104:1167-1184. [PMID: 40111937 DOI: 10.1177/13872877251323231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2025]
Abstract
BackgroundThe introduction of anti-amyloid treatments (AAT) for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has put the cost-effectiveness into focus.ObjectiveEstimate the potential cost-effectiveness of diagnostic pathways combined with AAT for early AD.MethodsDiagnostic accuracy of blood-based (BBM) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers was obtained from Norwegian memory clinics using positron emission tomography (PET) as reference standard. In a health-economic model, the cost-effectiveness of three diagnostic strategies was estimated relying either on BBM (p-tau 217), CSF (Aβ42/40 ratio), and BBM with CSF confirmatory testing and compared with standard of care (SoC) and compared with CSF-AAT. The model consisted of a decision tree reflecting the diagnostic process and a subsequent Markov cohort model starting at mild cognitive impairment due to AD. All strategies except SoC were combined with AAT including costs of treatment (assumed €5000/year), infusions and monitoring.ResultsCompared with SoC all three strategies (CSF-AAT, BBM-AAT, and BBM-CSF-AAT) resulted in QALY gains at higher costs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 110k€, 141k€ and 110k€ respectively. Compared with CSF-AAT both BBM-AAT and BBM-CSF-AAT strategies resulted in QALYs lost at lower costs, with an ICER of 27k€ and 109k€ respectively. Results were particularly sensitive to the price of AAT and possible subcutaneous administration.ConclusionsCompared with SoC all three strategies are potentially not cost-effective as they exceeded the Swedish maximum willingness to pay threshold of €94,800 per QALY gained. BBM-CSF-AAT versus CSF-AAT is potentially cost-effective if willing to accept its QALY loss. Discussions on budget impact on different payers are needed after introducing AAT.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anders Wimo
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics, BioClinicum J9:20, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
| | - Ron Handels
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics, BioClinicum J9:20, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
- Maastricht University, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht, Netherlands
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Kaj Blennow
- Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - Bjørn-Eivind Kirsebom
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway
- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway
- Department of Neurology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Per Selnes
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Department of Research, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
| | - Jaka Bon
- Department of Neurology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Andreja Emersic
- Department of Neurology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Fernando Gonzalez-Ortiz
- Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Milica Gregoric Kramberger
- Department of Neurology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- Medical Faculty, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Anders Sköldunger
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics, BioClinicum J9:20, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
- Department of Nursing, Biologihuset, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
| | - Andreja Speh
- Department of Neurology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | | | - Ellen Vromen
- Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC Location Vumc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pieter Jelle Visser
- Alzheimer Center Amsterdam, Neurology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC Location Vumc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Amsterdam Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Psychiatry, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Bengt Winblad
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics, BioClinicum J9:20, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
- Karolinska University Hospital, Theme Inflammation and Aging, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Tormod Fladby
- Department of Neurology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway
- Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Handels R, Grimm S, Blokland A, Possemis N, Ramakers I, Sambeth A, Verhey F, Vos S, Joore M, Prickaerts J, Jönsson L. The value of maintaining cognition in patients with mild cognitive impairment: The innovation headroom and potential cost-effectiveness of roflumilast. Alzheimers Dement 2023; 19:3458-3471. [PMID: 36808801 DOI: 10.1002/alz.13001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2022] [Revised: 01/19/2023] [Accepted: 02/20/2023] [Indexed: 02/20/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Early health-technology assessment can support discussing scarce resource allocation among stakeholders. We explored the value of maintaining cognition in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by estimating: (1) the innovation headroom and (2) the potential cost effectiveness of roflumilast treatment in this population. METHODS The innovation headroom was operationalized by a fictive 100% efficacious treatment effect, and the roflumilast effect on memory word learning test was assumed to be associated with 7% relative risk reduction of dementia onset. Both were compared to Dutch setting usual care using the adapted International Pharmaco-Economic Collaboration on Alzheimer's Disease (IPECAD) open-source model. RESULTS The total innovation headroom expressed as net health benefit was 4.2 (95% bootstrap interval: 2.9-5.7) quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The potential cost effectiveness of roflumilast was k€34 per QALY. DISCUSSION The innovation headroom in MCI is substantial. Although the potential cost effectiveness of roflumilast treatment is uncertain, further research on its effect on dementia onset is likely valuable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ron Handels
- Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
- Division of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
| | - Sabine Grimm
- KEMTA, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Arjan Blokland
- Department of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, EURON, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Nina Possemis
- Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, EURON, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Inez Ramakers
- Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Anke Sambeth
- Department of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, EURON, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Frans Verhey
- Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Stephanie Vos
- Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Manuela Joore
- KEMTA, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Jos Prickaerts
- Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, EURON, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands
| | - Linus Jönsson
- Division of Neurogeriatrics, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhou J, Benoit M, Sharoar MG. Recent advances in pre-clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease. Metab Brain Dis 2022; 37:1703-1725. [PMID: 33900524 DOI: 10.1007/s11011-021-00733-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2021] [Accepted: 04/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most common dementia with currently no known cures or disease modifying treatments (DMTs), despite much time and effort from the field. Diagnosis and intervention of AD during the early pre-symptomatic phase of the disease is thought to be a more effective strategy. Therefore, the detection of biomarkers has emerged as a critical tool for monitoring the effect of new AD therapies, as well as identifying patients most likely to respond to treatment. The establishment of the amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration (A/T/N) framework in 2018 has codified the contexts of use of AD biomarkers in neuroimaging and bodily fluids for research and diagnostic purposes. Furthermore, a renewed drive for novel AD biomarkers and innovative methods of detection has emerged with the goals of adding additional insight to disease progression and discovery of new therapeutic targets. The use of biomarkers has accelerated the development of AD drugs and will bring new therapies to patients in need. This review highlights recent methods utilized to diagnose antemortem AD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John Zhou
- Department of Neuroscience, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA
- Molecular Medicine Program, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA
| | - Marc Benoit
- Department of Neuroscience, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA
| | - Md Golam Sharoar
- Department of Neuroscience, University of Connecticut Health, Farmington, CT, 06030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
The Impact of Amyloid PET Disclosure on Quality of Life in Patients With Young Onset Dementia. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2021; 36:1-6. [DOI: 10.1097/wad.0000000000000470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/23/2020] [Accepted: 06/29/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
6
|
2020 update on the clinical validity of cerebrospinal fluid amyloid, tau, and phospho-tau as biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease in the context of a structured 5-phase development framework. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021; 48:2121-2139. [PMID: 33674895 PMCID: PMC8175301 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-021-05258-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2020] [Accepted: 02/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Purpose In the last decade, the research community has focused on defining reliable biomarkers for the early detection of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology. In 2017, the Geneva AD Biomarker Roadmap Initiative adapted a framework for the systematic validation of oncological biomarkers to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) AD biomarkers—encompassing the 42 amino-acid isoform of amyloid-β (Aβ42), phosphorylated-tau (P-tau), and Total-tau (T-tau)—with the aim to accelerate their development and clinical implementation. The aim of this work is to update the current validation status of CSF AD biomarkers based on the Biomarker Roadmap methodology. Methods A panel of experts in AD biomarkers convened in November 2019 at a 2-day workshop in Geneva. The level of maturity (fully achieved, partly achieved, preliminary evidence, not achieved, unsuccessful) of CSF AD biomarkers was assessed based on the Biomarker Roadmap methodology before the meeting and presented and discussed during the workshop. Results By comparison to the previous 2017 Geneva Roadmap meeting, the primary advances in CSF AD biomarkers have been in the area of a unified protocol for CSF sampling, handling and storage, the introduction of certified reference methods and materials for Aβ42, and the introduction of fully automated assays. Additional advances have occurred in the form of defining thresholds for biomarker positivity and assessing the impact of covariates on their discriminatory ability. Conclusions Though much has been achieved for phases one through three, much work remains in phases four (real world performance) and five (assessment of impact/cost). To a large degree, this will depend on the availability of disease-modifying treatments for AD, given these will make accurate and generally available diagnostic tools key to initiate therapy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00259-021-05258-7.
Collapse
|
7
|
Wimo A, Handels R, Winblad B, Black CM, Johansson G, Salomonsson S, Eriksdotter M, Khandker RK. Quantifying and Describing the Natural History and Costs of Alzheimer's Disease and Effects of Hypothetical Interventions. J Alzheimers Dis 2020; 75:891-902. [PMID: 32390617 PMCID: PMC7369101 DOI: 10.3233/jad-191055] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
Background: A long-term horizon is necessary when the socioeconomic consequences and the potential effects of interventions in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) are estimated. Objectives: To illustrate the potential societal costs of AD across the disease continuum and to illustrate the potential cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical intervention with disease modifying treatment (DMT). Methods: Based on the Swedish dementia registry, a Markov model was used to simulate a virtual cohort of 100,000 people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) due to AD (AD-MCI) in Sweden for 40 years starting at the age of 60. A simulated hypothetical intervention assumed a 25% reduction in progression rate during AD-MCI and mild AD-dementia. A comprehensive set of sensitivity analyses was included. Results: The cumulative risk to develop dementia was 96%. The mean simulated survival was 19.0 years. The net present value for a person year with dementia was 252,843 SEK (about 29,500 US$). The cost effectiveness model illustrated how the hypothetical scenario of a 25% reduction in progression to AD-dementia would require 41 AD-MCI patients to be treated to prevent one case of AD-dementia (2,447 avoided AD-dementia cases of 100,000 with AD-MCI). Most scenarios illustrated hypothetical cost effectiveness (based on a willingness to pay level of 600,000 SEK (70,000 US$) per gained QALY), but not cost savings. Discussion: Lifetime societal costs of AD are substantial. A future DMT may be potentially cost-effective given assumed treatment effects and costs, but cost savings are unlikely.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anders Wimo
- Department of Neurobiology, Karolinska Institutet, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Stockholm, Sweden.,Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/County Council of Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden
| | - Ron Handels
- Department of Neurobiology, Karolinska Institutet, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Stockholm, Sweden.,Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht, Netherlands
| | - Bengt Winblad
- Department of Neurobiology, Karolinska Institutet, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Christopher M Black
- Merck & Co., Inc., Center for Observational and Real World Evidence (CORE), Kenilworth, NJ, USA
| | - Gunilla Johansson
- Department of Neurobiology, Karolinska Institutet, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Stina Salomonsson
- Merck Sharp and Dohme, Center for Observational and Real World Evidence (CORE), Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Maria Eriksdotter
- Department of Neurobiology, Karolinska Institutet, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Clinical Geriatrics, Stockholm, Sweden.,Theme Aging, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden
| | - Rezaul K Khandker
- Merck & Co., Inc., Center for Observational and Real World Evidence (CORE), Kenilworth, NJ, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Wittenberg R, Knapp M, Karagiannidou M, Dickson J, Schott JM. Economic impacts of introducing diagnostics for mild cognitive impairment Alzheimer's disease patients. ALZHEIMER'S & DEMENTIA (NEW YORK, N. Y.) 2019; 5:382-387. [PMID: 31463360 PMCID: PMC6709060 DOI: 10.1016/j.trci.2019.06.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/02/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are likely to be offered only to patients with molecular evidence for Alzheimer pathology and expanded to patients with prodromal AD. We calculated the potential future costs of expanding the number of positron emission tomography (PET) and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) tests in the United Kingdom. METHODS We conducted a focused literature review and consulted experts to obtain information on the current use of PET and CSF to diagnose prodromal AD, staffing and equipment requirements for these tests, and associated costs. RESULTS We estimate annual costs of 100,000 extra amyloid PET scans and 100,000 extra CSF tests at £113 million and £48 million, respectively; these costs are likely to be higher in the first year. DISCUSSION The budgetary impacts are not insignificant but are small in comparison to the likely market price of any disease-modifying treatments or to the probable costs of missed or inaccurate diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raphael Wittenberg
- Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
| | - Martin Knapp
- Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
| | - Maria Karagiannidou
- Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom
| | - John Dickson
- Institute of Nuclear Medicine, University College Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jonathan M. Schott
- Dementia Research Centre, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Cognat E, Mouton Liger F, Troussière AC, Wallon D, Dumurgier J, Magnin E, Duron E, Gabelle A, Croisile B, de la Sayette V, Jager A, Blanc F, Bouaziz-Amar E, Miguet-Alfonsi C, Quillard M, Schraen S, Philippi N, Beaufils E, Pasquier F, Hannequin D, Robert P, Hugon J, Paquet C. What is the clinical impact of cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers on final diagnosis and management in patients with mild cognitive impairment in clinical practice? Results from a nation-wide prospective survey in France. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e026380. [PMID: 31152032 PMCID: PMC6549619 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026380] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES New diagnostic criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) include cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers that allow diagnosis at the stage of mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, the impact of CSF biomarkers in MCI populations in clinical practice has been poorly evaluated. The objective of this study is to assess the use and impact in clinical practice of AD CSF biomarkers in French memory clinics. DESIGN We performed a nation-wide, prospective survey between March 2012 and September 2014. Data over the same period was extracted from the French National Database (Banque Nationale Alzheimer, BNA) and compared with the results of the survey. SETTING 29 secondary and tertiary memory clinics in France. PARTICIPANTS Clinicians prescribing lumbar puncture (LP) in order to measure AD CSF biomarkers. Clinicians completed a two-part questionnaire for each of their patients undergoing LP. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES Assessment of diagnosis, level of confidence before and after CSF biomarkers and impact on management in patients who underwent LP for CSF AD biomarkers in clinical routine. RESULTS 977 questionnaires were completed, of which 61 were excluded because of unknown initial/final diagnosis or non-contributory CSF results. Of 916 patients reported, 153 (16.7%) had MCI as the initial diagnosis, of which 51 (33.3%) displayed an AD profile. CSF biomarkers resulted in a change in diagnosis in 44 patients (28.8%). Confidence level significantly increased after LP (8.3±1.4vs 6.73±1.18, p<0.0001), and CSF results modified management in 71/156 patients (46.4%), including 36 (23.5%) enrolled in clinical trials. Comparison of change in diagnosis with the BNA population revealed no difference (32.24%, p=0.4). CONCLUSION This nation-wide survey, reflecting clinical practice in French memory clinics, describes the impact of CSF AD biomarkers in patients with MCI in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emmanuel Cognat
- Université de Paris, UMRS-1144, Inserm, F-75010 Paris, France
- Cognitive Neurology Center, Centre mémoire Ressource et Recherche Nord Ile-de-France, Lariboisière Fernand-Widal Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de paris, Paris, France
| | | | - Anne-Cécile Troussière
- Lille Memory Center, Communaute d’Universites et d’Etablissements Lille Nord de France, Lille, France
| | - David Wallon
- Memory Center, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
- Inserm UMR1079, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
| | - Julien Dumurgier
- Cognitive Neurology Center, Centre mémoire Ressource et Recherche Nord Ile-de-France, Lariboisière Fernand-Widal Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de paris, Paris, France
- Université de Paris, UMRS-1153, INSERM, F-75010 Paris, France
| | - Eloi Magnin
- Memory Center, University Hospital Centre Besançon, Besancon, France
| | | | - Audrey Gabelle
- CMRR, University Hospital Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | | | | | - Alain Jager
- Neurology Center, Hôpital de Thionville, Thionville, France
| | - Frederic Blanc
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital of Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
- ICube, University of Strasbourg and CNRS, Strabsourg, France
| | - Elodie Bouaziz-Amar
- Université de Paris, UMRS-1144, Inserm, F-75010 Paris, France
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, GH Saint-Louis Lariboisière Fernand-Widal, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France
| | - Carole Miguet-Alfonsi
- Laboratoire de pharmacologie clinique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Besançon, Besançon, France
| | - Muriel Quillard
- Laboratoire de Biochimie, Institut de Biologie Clinique, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre - Biological Resource Center CIC CRB Inserm 1404, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
| | - Susanna Schraen
- Departments of Biology and Pathology, Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire Lille, Lille, France
| | | | | | - Florence Pasquier
- Univ Lille, Inserm U1171, Lille, France
- Memory Clinic, University Hospital Lille, Lille, France
| | - Didier Hannequin
- Memory Center, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
- UMR1079, Inserm, Rouen, France
| | - Philippe Robert
- Memory Center/EA COBTEK, University Hospital Nice, Nice, France
| | - Jacques Hugon
- Université de Paris, UMRS-1144, Inserm, F-75010 Paris, France
- Cognitive Neurology Center, Centre mémoire Ressource et Recherche Nord Ile-de-France, Lariboisière Fernand-Widal Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de paris, Paris, France
| | - Claire Paquet
- Université de Paris, UMRS-1144, Inserm, F-75010 Paris, France
- Cognitive Neurology Center, Centre mémoire Ressource et Recherche Nord Ile-de-France, Lariboisière Fernand-Widal Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de paris, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Lin PJ, D'Cruz B, Leech AA, Neumann PJ, Sanon Aigbogun M, Oberdhan D, Lavelle TA. Family and Caregiver Spillover Effects in Cost-Utility Analyses of Alzheimer's Disease Interventions. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2019; 37:597-608. [PMID: 30903567 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-019-00788-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Alzheimer's disease or dementia can impose a significant burden on family and other informal caregivers. This study investigated how the inclusion of family/informal caregiver spillover effects in a cost-utility analysis may influence the reported value of Alzheimer's disease/dementia interventions. METHODS We used PubMed to identify Alzheimer's disease or dementia cost-utility analyses published from 1 January, 2000 to 31 March, 2018. We reviewed and abstracted information from each study using a two-reader consensus process. We investigated the frequency and methods in which family/caregiver spillover costs and health effects were incorporated into cost-utility analyses, and examined how their inclusion may influence the reported incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS Of 63 Alzheimer's disease/dementia cost-utility analyses meeting inclusion criteria, 44 (70%) considered at least some family/caregiver spillover costs or health effects. Thirty-two studies incorporated spillover costs only, two incorporated spillover health effects only, and ten incorporated both. The most common approach for accounting for spillover was adding informal caregiving time costs to patient costs (n = 36) and adding informal caregiver quality-adjusted life-years to patient values (n = 7). In a subset of 33 incremental cost-effectiveness ratio pairs from 19 studies, incorporating spillover outcomes made incremental cost-effectiveness ratios more favorable (n = 15; 45%) or kept the intervention cost saving (n = 13; 39%) in most cases. In fewer cases, including spillover increased incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (n = 2; 6%), kept the intervention dominated [more costs/less quality-adjusted life-years] (n = 2; 6%), or changed incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from dominated to less cost/less quality-adjusted life-years (n = 1; 3%). In 11 cases (33%), adding spillover effects into analyses resulted in a lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio that crossed a common cost-effectiveness threshold, which could have downstream implications for programs or policies that are adopted based on cost-effectiveness analysis results. DISCUSSION Most Alzheimer's disease/dementia cost-utility analyses incorporated spillover costs, often as caregiver time costs, but considered spillover health impacts less often. In about 85% of the analyses, including Alzheimer's disease/dementia spillover cost or health effects decreased incremental cost-effectiveness ratios or kept the intervention cost saving. The broader value of an Alzheimer's disease/dementia intervention to society may in some cases be underestimated without considering these spillover effects on family and informal caregivers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pei-Jung Lin
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Box #63, Boston, MA, 02111, USA.
| | - Brittany D'Cruz
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Box #63, Boston, MA, 02111, USA
| | - Ashley A Leech
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Box #63, Boston, MA, 02111, USA
| | - Peter J Neumann
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Box #63, Boston, MA, 02111, USA
| | - Myrlene Sanon Aigbogun
- Health Outcomes, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA
| | - Dorothee Oberdhan
- Health Outcomes, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc., Princeton, NJ, USA
| | - Tara A Lavelle
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Tufts Medical Center, 800 Washington Street, Box #63, Boston, MA, 02111, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Handels R, Wimo A. Challenges and recommendations for the health-economic evaluation of primary prevention programmes for dementia. Aging Ment Health 2019; 23:53-59. [PMID: 29039976 DOI: 10.1080/13607863.2017.1390730] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We aimed to review health-economic evaluations of (hypothetical) intervention programmes for the primary prevention of dementia, and highlight challenges and provide recommendations for future research to estimate its cost-effectiveness. METHODS We searched the databases PubMed, MODEM, CEA and NHS for publications on the cost-consequence, -effectiveness, -utility or -benefit analysis of (hypothetical) interventions to reduce the risk of developing dementia for persons without dementia, and described the study characteristics. RESULTS Three publications described the evaluation of a hypothetical risk reduction due to physical activity or a multidomain intervention programme. Two studies reported a reduction of care costs. One study yielded two scenarios of increased care costs and one scenario of reduced care costs. Only one study reported the impact in QALY terms, and found a QALY gain. CONCLUSION A few studies have evaluated a hypothetical multidomain prevention intervention, and reported that primary dementia prevention is potentially cost-saving or cost-effective. Various challenges remain to evaluate the health-economic impact of prevention interventions, including extrapolation of short-term trial effects, care costs in the dementia-free and life years gained, and accurate representation of usual care. We recommend extensive sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of assumptions regarding these aspects on the outcomes of cost-effectiveness studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ron Handels
- a Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences , Maastricht University , Maastricht , The Netherlands.,b Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics , Karolinska Institute , Stockholm , Sweden
| | - Anders Wimo
- b Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Division of Neurogeriatrics , Karolinska Institute , Stockholm , Sweden.,c Centre for Research & Development, Uppsala University / County Council of Gävleborg , Gävle , Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Michaud TL, Kane RL, McCarten JR, Gaugler JE, Nyman JA, Kuntz KM. Using Cerebrospinal Fluid Biomarker Testing to Target Treatment to Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. PHARMACOECONOMICS - OPEN 2018; 2:309-323. [PMID: 29623628 PMCID: PMC6103924 DOI: 10.1007/s41669-017-0054-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/29/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) biomarkers are shown to facilitate a risk identification of patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) into different risk levels of progression to Alzheimer's disease (AD). Knowing a patient's risk level provides an opportunity for earlier interventions, which could result in potential greater benefits. We assessed the cost effectiveness of the use of CSF biomarkers in MCI patients where the treatment decision was based on patients' risk level. METHODS We developed a state-transition model to project lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs for a cohort of 65-year-old MCI patients from a US societal perspective. We compared four test-and-treat strategies where the decision to treat was based on a patient's risk level (low, intermediate, high) of progressing to AD with two strategies without testing, one where no patients were treated during the MCI phase and in the other all patients were treated. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate parameter uncertainty. RESULTS Testing and treating low-risk MCI patients was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$37,700 per QALY. Our results were most sensitive to the level of treatment effectiveness for patients with mild AD and for MCI patients. Moreover, the ICERs for this strategy at the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles were US$18,900 and US$50,100 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSION Based on the best available evidence regarding the treatment effectiveness for MCI, this study suggests the potential value of performing CSF biomarker testing for early targeted treatments among MCI patients with a narrow range for the ICER.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tzeyu L Michaud
- Center for Reducing Health Disparities, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
- Department of Health Promotion, Social and Behavioral Health, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
| | - Robert L Kane
- Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - J Riley McCarten
- Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA
- Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Joseph E Gaugler
- School of Nursing and Center on Aging, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - John A Nyman
- Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Karen M Kuntz
- Division of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Handels RLH, Wimo A, Dodel R, Kramberger MG, Visser PJ, Molinuevo JL, Verhey FRJ, Winblad B. Cost-Utility of Using Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers in Cerebrospinal Fluid to Predict Progression from Mild Cognitive Impairment to Dementia. J Alzheimers Dis 2018; 60:1477-1487. [PMID: 29081416 DOI: 10.3233/jad-170324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diagnostic research criteria for Alzheimer's disease support the use of biomarkers in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to improve the accuracy of the prognosis regarding progression to dementia for people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to estimate the potential incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of adding CSF biomarker testing to the standard diagnostic workup to determine the prognosis for patients with MCI. METHODS In an early technology assessment, a mathematical simulation model was built, using available evidence on added prognostic value as well as expert opinion to estimate the incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 20,000 virtual MCI patients with (intervention strategy) and without (control strategy) relying on CSF, from a health-care sector perspective and with a 5-year time horizon. RESULTS Adding the CSF test improved the accuracy of prognosis by 11%. This resulted in an average QALY gain of 0.046 and € 432 additional costs per patient, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of € 9,416. CONCLUSION The results show the potential of CSF biomarkers in current practice from a health-economics perspective. This result was, however, marked by a high degree of uncertainty, and empirical research is required into the impact of a prognosis on worrying, false-positive/negative prognosis, and stigmatization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ron L H Handels
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Center for Alzheimer Research, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden
| | - Anders Wimo
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Center for Alzheimer Research, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden
| | - Richard Dodel
- Department of NeuroGeriatrics, University Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany
| | - Milica G Kramberger
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Center for Alzheimer Research, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden.,Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Pieter Jelle Visser
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.,Department of Neurology and Alzheimer Centre, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - José Luis Molinuevo
- Alzheimer Disease and Other Cognitive Unit, Hospital Clinic, IDIBAPS, Barcelona, Spain.,Barcelonaβeta Brain Research Center, Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Frans R J Verhey
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, Alzheimer Centre Limburg, School for Mental Health and Neurosciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Bengt Winblad
- Department of Neurobiology, Care Science and Society, Center for Alzheimer Research, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Lewczuk P, Riederer P, O’Bryant SE, Verbeek MM, Dubois B, Visser PJ, Jellinger KA, Engelborghs S, Ramirez A, Parnetti L, Jack CR, Teunissen CE, Hampel H, Lleó A, Jessen F, Glodzik L, de Leon MJ, Fagan AM, Molinuevo JL, Jansen WJ, Winblad B, Shaw LM, Andreasson U, Otto M, Mollenhauer B, Wiltfang J, Turner MR, Zerr I, Handels R, Thompson AG, Johansson G, Ermann N, Trojanowski JQ, Karaca I, Wagner H, Oeckl P, van Waalwijk van Doorn L, Bjerke M, Kapogiannis D, Kuiperij HB, Farotti L, Li Y, Gordon BA, Epelbaum S, Vos SJB, Klijn CJM, Van Nostrand WE, Minguillon C, Schmitz M, Gallo C, Mato AL, Thibaut F, Lista S, Alcolea D, Zetterberg H, Blennow K, Kornhuber J, Riederer P, Gallo C, Kapogiannis D, Mato AL, Thibaut F. Cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers for neurodegenerative dementias: An update of the Consensus of the Task Force on Biological Markers in Psychiatry of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry. World J Biol Psychiatry 2018; 19:244-328. [PMID: 29076399 PMCID: PMC5916324 DOI: 10.1080/15622975.2017.1375556] [Citation(s) in RCA: 196] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
In the 12 years since the publication of the first Consensus Paper of the WFSBP on biomarkers of neurodegenerative dementias, enormous advancement has taken place in the field, and the Task Force takes now the opportunity to extend and update the original paper. New concepts of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and the conceptual interactions between AD and dementia due to AD were developed, resulting in two sets for diagnostic/research criteria. Procedures for pre-analytical sample handling, biobanking, analyses and post-analytical interpretation of the results were intensively studied and optimised. A global quality control project was introduced to evaluate and monitor the inter-centre variability in measurements with the goal of harmonisation of results. Contexts of use and how to approach candidate biomarkers in biological specimens other than cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), e.g. blood, were precisely defined. Important development was achieved in neuroimaging techniques, including studies comparing amyloid-β positron emission tomography results to fluid-based modalities. Similarly, development in research laboratory technologies, such as ultra-sensitive methods, raises our hopes to further improve analytical and diagnostic accuracy of classic and novel candidate biomarkers. Synergistically, advancement in clinical trials of anti-dementia therapies energises and motivates the efforts to find and optimise the most reliable early diagnostic modalities. Finally, the first studies were published addressing the potential of cost-effectiveness of the biomarkers-based diagnosis of neurodegenerative disorders.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Piotr Lewczuk
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, and Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
- Department of Neurodegeneration Diagnostics, Medical University of Białystok, and Department of Biochemical Diagnostics, University Hospital of Białystok, Białystok, Poland
| | - Peter Riederer
- Center of Mental Health, Clinic and Policlinic of Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany
| | - Sid E. O’Bryant
- Institute for Healthy Aging, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA
| | - Marcel M. Verbeek
- Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud Alzheimer Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud Alzheimer center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Bruno Dubois
- Institut de la Mémoire et de la Maladie d’Alzheimer (IM2A), Salpêtrièrie Hospital, INSERM UMR-S 975 (ICM), Paris 6 University, Paris, France
| | - Pieter Jelle Visser
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Department of Neurology, Alzheimer Centre, Amsterdam Neuroscience VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | | | - Sebastiaan Engelborghs
- Reference Center for Biological Markers of Dementia (BIODEM), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
- Department of Neurology and Memory Clinic, Hospital Network Antwerp (ZNA) Middelheim and Hoge Beuken, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Alfredo Ramirez
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
- Institute of Human Genetics, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
| | - Lucilla Parnetti
- Section of Neurology, Center for Memory Disturbances, Lab of Clinical Neurochemistry, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | | | - Charlotte E. Teunissen
- Neurochemistry Lab and Biobank, Department of Clinical Chemistry, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Harald Hampel
- AXA Research Fund & UPMC Chair, Sorbonne Universités, Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle Épinière (ICM), Département de Neurologie, Institut de la Mémoire et de la Maladie d’Alzheimer (IM2A), Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Boulevard de l’hôpital, Paris, France
| | - Alberto Lleó
- Department of Neurology, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques Sant Pau - Hospital de Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas, CIBERNED, Spain
| | - Frank Jessen
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
- German Center for Neurodegenerative Disorders (DZNE), Bonn, Germany
| | - Lidia Glodzik
- Center for Brain Health, Department of Psychiatry, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Mony J. de Leon
- Center for Brain Health, Department of Psychiatry, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Anne M. Fagan
- Knight Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
- Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| | - José Luis Molinuevo
- Barcelonabeta Brain Research Center, Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain
- Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Cognitive Disorders Unit, Hospital Clínic, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Willemijn J. Jansen
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Bengt Winblad
- Karolinska Institutet, Department NVS, Center for Alzheimer Research, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Huddinge, Sweden
| | - Leslie M. Shaw
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Ulf Andreasson
- Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
- Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, The Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - Markus Otto
- Department of Neurology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Brit Mollenhauer
- Paracelsus-Elena-Klinik, Kassel and University Medical Center Göttingen, Department of Neurology, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Jens Wiltfang
- Department of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany
- German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Göttingen, Germany
- iBiMED, Medical Sciences Department, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal
| | - Martin R. Turner
- Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Inga Zerr
- German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Göttingen, Germany
- Clinical Dementia Centre, Department of Neurology, University Medical School, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Ron Handels
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
- Karolinska Institutet, Department NVS, Center for Alzheimer Research, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Huddinge, Sweden
| | | | - Gunilla Johansson
- Karolinska Institutet, Department NVS, Center for Alzheimer Research, Division of Neurogeriatrics, Huddinge, Sweden
| | - Natalia Ermann
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, and Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | - John Q. Trojanowski
- Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Ilker Karaca
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Holger Wagner
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
| | - Patrick Oeckl
- Department of Neurology, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Linda van Waalwijk van Doorn
- Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud Alzheimer Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud Alzheimer center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Maria Bjerke
- Reference Center for Biological Markers of Dementia (BIODEM), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Dimitrios Kapogiannis
- Laboratory of Neurosciences, National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health (NIA/NIH), Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - H. Bea Kuiperij
- Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud Alzheimer Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud Alzheimer center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Lucia Farotti
- Section of Neurology, Center for Memory Disturbances, Lab of Clinical Neurochemistry, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
| | - Yi Li
- Center for Brain Health, Department of Psychiatry, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Brian A. Gordon
- Knight Alzheimer’s Disease Research Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
- Department of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, USA
| | - Stéphane Epelbaum
- Institut de la Mémoire et de la Maladie d’Alzheimer (IM2A), Salpêtrièrie Hospital, INSERM UMR-S 975 (ICM), Paris 6 University, Paris, France
| | - Stephanie J. B. Vos
- Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology, School for Mental Health and Neuroscience, Alzheimer Center Limburg, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Catharina J. M. Klijn
- Department of Neurology, Radboud University Medical Center, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud Alzheimer Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Carolina Minguillon
- Barcelonabeta Brain Research Center, Pasqual Maragall Foundation, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Matthias Schmitz
- German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Göttingen, Germany
- Clinical Dementia Centre, Department of Neurology, University Medical School, Göttingen, Germany
| | - Carla Gallo
- Departamento de Ciencias Celulares y Moleculares/Laboratorios de Investigación y Desarrollo, Facultad de Ciencias y Filosofía, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru
| | - Andrea Lopez Mato
- Chair of Psychoneuroimmunoendocrinology, Maimonides University, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Florence Thibaut
- Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital Cochin-Site Tarnier 89 rue d’Assas, INSERM 894, Faculty of Medicine Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Simone Lista
- AXA Research Fund & UPMC Chair, Sorbonne Universités, Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) Paris 06, Inserm, CNRS, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle Épinière (ICM), Département de Neurologie, Institut de la Mémoire et de la Maladie d’Alzheimer (IM2A), Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Boulevard de l’hôpital, Paris, France
| | - Daniel Alcolea
- Department of Neurology, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques Sant Pau - Hospital de Sant Pau, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
- Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red en Enfermedades Neurodegenerativas, CIBERNED, Spain
| | - Henrik Zetterberg
- Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
- Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Psychiatry and Neurochemistry, The Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Mölndal, Sweden
- Department of Molecular Neuroscience, UCL Institute of Neurology, London, UK
| | - Kaj Blennow
- Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Mölndal, Sweden
| | - Johannes Kornhuber
- Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, and Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
Current issues and future research priorities for health economic modelling across the full continuum of Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2017; 13:312-321. [PMID: 28063281 DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2016.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2016] [Revised: 12/01/2016] [Accepted: 12/09/2016] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Available data and models for the health-economic evaluation of treatment in Alzheimer's disease (AD) have limitations causing uncertainty to decision makers. Forthcoming treatment strategies in preclinical or early AD warrant an update on the challenges associated with their economic evaluation. The perspectives of the co-authors were complemented with a targeted review of literature discussing methodological issues and data gaps in AD health-economic modelling. The methods and data available to translate treatment efficacy in early disease into long-term outcomes of relevance to policy makers and payers are limited. Current long-term large-scale data accurately representing the continuous, multifaceted, and heterogeneous disease process are missing. The potential effect of disease-modifying treatment on key long-term outcomes such as institutionalization and death is uncertain but may have great effect on cost-effectiveness. Future research should give priority to collaborative efforts to access better data on the natural progression of AD and its association with key long-term outcomes.
Collapse
|
16
|
Hernandez L, Ozen A, DosSantos R, Getsios D. Systematic Review of Model-Based Economic Evaluations of Treatments for Alzheimer's Disease. PHARMACOECONOMICS 2016; 34:681-707. [PMID: 26899832 DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0392-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Numerous economic evaluations using decision-analytic models have assessed the cost effectiveness of treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the last two decades. It is important to understand the methods used in the existing models of AD and how they could impact results, as they could inform new model-based economic evaluations of treatments for AD. OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic review was to provide a detailed description on the relevant aspects and components of existing decision-analytic models of AD, identifying areas for improvement and future development, and to conduct a quality assessment of the included studies. METHODS We performed a systematic and comprehensive review of cost-effectiveness studies of pharmacological treatments for AD published in the last decade (January 2005 to February 2015) that used decision-analytic models, also including studies considering patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). The background information of the included studies and specific information on the decision-analytic models, including their approach and components, assumptions, data sources, analyses, and results, were obtained from each study. A description of how the modeling approaches and assumptions differ across studies, identifying areas for improvement and future development, is provided. At the end, we present our own view of the potential future directions of decision-analytic models of AD and the challenges they might face. RESULTS The included studies present a variety of different approaches, assumptions, and scope of decision-analytic models used in the economic evaluation of pharmacological treatments of AD. The major areas for improvement in future models of AD are to include domains of cognition, function, and behavior, rather than cognition alone; include a detailed description of how data used to model the natural course of disease progression were derived; state and justify the economic model selected and structural assumptions and limitations; provide a detailed (rather than high-level) description of the cost components included in the model; and report on the face-, internal-, and cross-validity of the model to strengthen the credibility and confidence in model results. The quality scores of most studies were rated as fair to good (average 87.5, range 69.5-100, in a scale of 0-100). CONCLUSION Despite the advancements in decision-analytic models of AD, there remain several areas of improvement that are necessary to more appropriately and realistically capture the broad nature of AD and the potential benefits of treatments in future models of AD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Luis Hernandez
- Evidera, 430 Bedford St #300, Lexington, MA, 02420, USA.
| | | | | | - Denis Getsios
- Evidera, 430 Bedford St #300, Lexington, MA, 02420, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Beauchet O, Annweiler C, Callisaya ML, De Cock AM, Helbostad JL, Kressig RW, Srikanth V, Steinmetz JP, Blumen HM, Verghese J, Allali G. Poor Gait Performance and Prediction of Dementia: Results From a Meta-Analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016; 17:482-90. [PMID: 26852960 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.12.092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 175] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2015] [Revised: 12/21/2015] [Accepted: 12/22/2015] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Poor gait performance predicts risk of developing dementia. No structured critical evaluation has been conducted to study this association yet. The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically examine the association of poor gait performance with incidence of dementia. METHODS An English and French Medline search was conducted in June 2015, with no limit of date, using the medical subject headings terms "Gait" OR "Gait Disorders, Neurologic" OR "Gait Apraxia" OR "Gait Ataxia" AND "Dementia" OR "Frontotemporal Dementia" OR "Dementia, Multi-Infarct" OR "Dementia, Vascular" OR "Alzheimer Disease" OR "Lewy Body Disease" OR "Frontotemporal Dementia With Motor Neuron Disease" (Supplementary Concept). Poor gait performance was defined by standardized tests of walking, and dementia was diagnosed according to international consensus criteria. Four etiologies of dementia were identified: any dementia, Alzheimer disease (AD), vascular dementia (VaD), and non-AD (ie, pooling VaD, mixed dementias, and other dementias). Fixed effects meta-analyses were performed on the estimates in order to generate summary values. RESULTS Of the 796 identified abstracts, 12 (1.5%) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Poor gait performance predicted dementia [pooled hazard ratio (HR) combined with relative risk and odds ratio = 1.53 with P < .001 for any dementia, pooled HR = 1.79 with P < .001 for VaD, HR = 1.89 with P value < .001 for non-AD]. Findings were weaker for predicting AD (HR = 1.03 with P value = .004). CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis provides evidence that poor gait performance predicts dementia. This association depends on the type of dementia; poor gait performance is a stronger predictor of non-AD dementias than AD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olivier Beauchet
- Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis, Jewish General Hospital and Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Dr. Joseph Kaufmann Chair in Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Center of Excellence on Aging and Chronic Diseases of McGill Integrated University Health Network, Quebec, Canada.
| | - Cédric Annweiler
- Division of Geriatrics, Department of Neuroscience, Angers University Hospital, Angers, France
| | - Michele L Callisaya
- Menzies Institute of Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia; Stroke and Ageing Research Group, Department of Medicine, Southern Clinical School, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | - Anne-Marie De Cock
- Department of Geriatrics and Department of Primary and Interdisciplinary Care (ELIZA), University of Antwerp and AZ St Maarten Mechelen, Antwerp, Belgium
| | - Jorunn L Helbostad
- Department of Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Reto W Kressig
- Department University Center for Medicine of Aging, Felix Platter Hospital and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Velandai Srikanth
- Stroke and Ageing Research Group, Department of Medicine, Southern Clinical School, Monash University, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Helena M Blumen
- Division of Cognitive and Motor Aging, Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY
| | - Joe Verghese
- Division of Cognitive and Motor Aging, Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY
| | - Gilles Allali
- Division of Cognitive and Motor Aging, Department of Neurology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY; Department of Neurology, Geneva University Hospital and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|